Minot State University Campus Climate Assessment Results of Report May 7, 2007.

Minot State University

Campus Climate Assessment

Results of Report

May 7, 2007

North Dakota University System Campus Climate Assessment Project

Background1

Commissioned by the Chancellor’s Office of the NDUS System in 2005 to:

Evaluate the climate at each of the system’s campuses

Present findings in a report to each campus

Present findings in an aggregate report

1all work in collaboration with the NDUS Diversity Council

Climate In Higher Education

Climate on University campuses not only affects the creation of knowledge, but also has a significant impact on members of the academic community who, in turn, contribute to the creation of the campus environment Bensimon, E. (2005), Hurtado, 2003; Milem, J., Chang, M., & Antonio, A. (2005) 1990; Rankin, 1994, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2006; Smith, 1999; Tierney, 1990).

Preserving a climate that offers equal learning opportunities for all students and academic freedom for all faculty – an environment free from discrimination – is one of the primary responsibilities of educational institutions.

North Dakota University SystemCommitment to Diversity

1999 Diversity Council established

Members appointed by respective campus President

The Council serves to provide a collaborative working relationship between all campuses to improve cultural sensitivity regarding diversity and human relations.

The Council also serves to provide proactive guidance for the improvement of retention rates and academic achievements of diverse student populations (e.g., Tribal Relations Report, 2005).

Current Campus Climate

Access

Retention

Research

Scholarship

Curriculum Pedagogy

UniversityPolicies/Service

Intergroup &IntragroupRelations

Institutional Transformation Model:Maximizing Equity©

Baseline Organizational

Challenges

SystemsAnalysis

Local / Sate /Regional

Environments

Contextualized Campus Wide Assessment

AdvancedOrganizational

Challenges

ConsultantRecommendations

Assessment

Transformationvia

Intervention

FiscalActions

Symbolic Actions

AdministrativeActions

EducationalActions Transformed

Campus Climate

Access

Retention

Research

Scholarship

Curriculum Pedagogy

UniversityPolices/Service


© 2001

Proposed Phases in Transformational Process

Assessment

Strategic Planning

Implementation & Accountability

Process to Date

October 2005 Presented proposal to NDUS Diversity Council Reviewed sample survey tool

November 2005-January 2006 Survey developed, reviewed, and revised with continued

input from NDUS Diversity Council (6 drafts) Both on-line and paper/pencil forms created Campuses developed marketing/communication plan to

prepare campus constituents to participate in the survey System IRB approved

Process to Date

February 2005 - May 2006 Survey made available to all members of each

campus community through an invitation from the President

MSU survey distributed February 13-March 3July 10, 2006 Meeting with NDUS Diversity Council Provide update on the progress of the project to date Review process forward and next steps

Process to Date

August-December 2006 Campus report drafts forwarded to respective campuses Final reports forwarded to respective campuses

December 2006 Aggregate report draft forwarded to K. Nettell & R.

Schauer

January 2007 Final aggregate report forwarded to all campuses

Survey Instrument

Final instrument 62 questions and additional space for respondents to provide

commentary On-line survey

Sample = Population All members of the MSU community were invited to participate

Results include information regarding: Respondents’ personal experiences at MSU Respondents’ perceptions of climate at MSU Respondents’ perceptions of institutional actions Respondents’ input into recommendations for change

Who are the respondents?

654 people responded to the call to participate

11% of respondents contributed comments via the open-ended questions

Limitations

Self-selection bias Overall 22% response rate Caution in generalizing the results due to

significantly low response rates for undergraduate students

Faculty Response Rates

Assistant Professor (n=30)

Associate Professor (n=13)

Faculty = 41% (n=75)

Professor (n=11)

Instructor/Lecturer/Adjunct (n=21)

Staff Response Rates

Non-Classified Staff (n=12)

Classified staff (n=76)

Academic Staff (n=11)

Administrator = 63% (n=12)

Staff = 48% (n=99)

Student Response Rates

Undergraduate Students = 16% (n=400)

Graduate Students = 37% (n=41)

Masters/Doctoral Degree Candidates (n=31)

Post-Baccalaureate Student (n=10)

Respondents by MSU Status (n)

400

4175

99

12 117

Undergraduate StudentGraduate StudentFacultyStaffAdministratorOtherDeclined to respond

Respondents by Gender & MSU Position (n)

324

83

8

49

4

116

25 16

Students Faculty Staff Admin

Women

Men

Respondents by Sexual Orientation & MSU Status (n)

425

9367

120

144 2


Heterosexual

LGBQ

Respondents byAge and Position(n)

74

120

95

22

51

7

20

73

20

29

49

72

0

2019

00 00

19

4

24

005 5

2000

19 orunder

20-21 22-24 25-32 33-42 43-51 52-60 61-69

Students

Faculty

Staff

Administrator

Respondents by Racial/Ethnic IdentityDuplicated Total (n)1

1Inclusive of multi-racial and/or multi-ethnic

586

3112 6 4

269 4

2 2 3

Caucasian/White (non-Hispanic)Native American/American IndianLatino(a)/Chicano(a)/HispanicAfrican AmericanBlackOtherAsianAsian AmericanAfricanAlaskan NativePacific Islander/Filipino

Native American/American Indian by Tribal Affiliation (n)1

Tribal Affiliation n

Assinoboine Sioux 1

Cheroke 3

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 1

Chippewa 3

Cree 1

Hidasta/Crow 1

Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara, Chippewa 1

Sissetion--Wahpeton--Oxate 1

Spirit Lake Tribe 1

Standing Rock Sioux 1

Three affiliated tribes 1

Turtle mountain Chippewa 5

Respondents by Racial/Ethnic IdentityUnduplicated Total (n)

53

599

People of Color White People

Respondents by Spiritual Affiliation (n)

9 12 9

28

2 3 1 2 4 81 5 1

9

192

27

6 114

1

163

36

4 8

40 40

11

Atheis

t

Agnost

ic

Assem

bly o

f God

Baptis

t

Baha'

I

Buddhis

t

Comm

unity o

f Chris

t

E. Orth

odox

Episco

pal

Evang

elic

al Fre

e

Hindu

Jehova

h's W

itness

Jew

ish

LDS

Luther

an

Met

hodist

Nativ

e Am

eric

an Tra

ditional

Pagan

Pente

cost

al

Presb

yteria

n

Qua

ker

Roman

Catholic

Spiritu

al, n

ot affi

liate

d

Unitaria

n/Univ

ersa

list

Wic

can

No Affi

liatio

n

Oth

er

Respondents1 by Time at MSU (n)

1Employees include all faculty and staff

22

117

42

209

555036

22 303178

Students Employees

1 yr. or less

2-4 yrs.

5-10 yrs.

11-19 yrs.

20-29 yrs.

+ 30 yrs.

Respondents with Conditions that Substantially Affect a Major Life Activity (n)

24

6

1312 13

27

8

1

47

3

9

3

8

3 2

10

0 0

4

Students Employees

Learning disabilityOrthopedicVisualHearingPsychologicalADHD/ADDHealth relatedTBISpeechOther

Citizenship Status by Position

Citizenship statusStudents Employees

n % n %

U.S. citizen—born in the United States 371 83.6 180 93.3

U.S. citizen—naturalized 11 2.5 3 1.6

Permanent resident (immigrant) 5 1.1 6 3.1

International (F-1, J-1, or H1-B, or other visa) 57 12.8 4 2.1

Income by MSU Student Status (n)

133

111107

40

29

$19,999 or below

$20K - $39,999

$40K - $69,999

$70K - $99,999

$100K or above

Parental Education by Undergraduate Student Status (n)

2 3

7770

49

30

76 79

27 27

8 11

22

14

126137

Parent/Guardian 1 Parent/Guardian 2

No Formal EducationNo High SchoolHigh SchoolSome CollegeAssociates DegreeBachelors DegreeGraduate DegreeOther Professional Degree

Students Primary Location/Avenue

for Taking Courses

Location n %

Main Campus 365 83.9

Satellite Campus 2 0.5

Distance learning 33 7.6

Both Campus classes & Distance learning 35 8.0

Students’ Residence

Students’ Residences n %

Family housing 24 5.5

Residence hall/Apartment style housing 90 20.7

Off campus apartment/house 181 41.6

Off campus with partner/spouse/children 93 21.4

Off campus with parent(s)/family/relative(s) 39 9.0

Other 8 1.8

Attended Diversity Program at MSU in Past Year

Attended Program within Past Year n %

Residence hall diversity program1 55 61.1

Campus sponsored multicultural program 198 30.3

Academic unit sponsored diversity event 128 19.6

Other cultural events (e.g., Powwow, Black History month event, Cultural speakers) 294 45.0

Other 19 2.9

I have not attended any multi-cultural/diversity programs/events 234 35.8

Findings

Aggregate Findings

80% of respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate at MSU.

81% of respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their academic department/program of study

84% of respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their classes/work area/unit

Aggregate Findings

83% of respondents have not personally experienced any conduct that has interfered with their ability to work, learn, or participate in any activity on campus.

82% of respondents have not observed or personally been made aware of any conduct that has created an offensive, intimidating, of hostile working or learning environment

67% of students feel that the classroom climate is welcoming for people from underrepresented groups.

61% of employees feel that the workplace climate is welcoming for people from underrepresented groups.

Challenges and Opportunities

Personally Experienced Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct at MSU

Experienced n %

Yes 106 16.2

No 545 83.3

Personally Experienced Based on…(%)

38

30

2524

2220

15

11 11

MSU Status (n=40)Age (n=32)Gender identity (n=26)Educational level (n=25)Other (n=23)Political Views (n=21)Religion (n=16)Race (n=12)Socioeconomic class (n=12)

Overall Personal Experiences of Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct

the Percent due to MSU Status

¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who have personally experienced this conduct.

19

0

78

0

28

13

43

20


Percent experienced conduct¹

Experienced conduct due to position²

(n=59)¹(n=12)²

(n=21)¹(n=9)²

(n=19)¹(n=15)²

(n=0)¹(n=0)²


the Percent due to Race by Race


1621

5

55

People of Color White


Experienced conduct due toethnicity²

(n=11)¹(n=6)²

(n=94)¹(n=5)²


the Percent due to Gender Identity by Gender


11

18

6

28

Women Men


Experienced conduct due togender²

(n=86)¹(n=24)²

(n=18)¹(n=1)²

Overall Personal Experiences of Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct the Percent due

to Sexual Orientation


38

16

38

3

Heterosexual LGB and Uncertain


Experienced conduct due tosexual orientation²

(n=96)¹(n=3)²

(n=8)¹(n=3)²

Overall Personal Experiences of Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct the Percent due

to Spiritual Affiliation


14

25

12

23

NonChristian Christian


Experienced conduct due toreligion²

(n=30)¹(n=7)²

(n=68)¹(n=8)²

Form of Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct

Form of Personal Experience % n

Felt intimidated/bullied 50.0 53

Deliberately ignored or excluded 34.0 36

Derogatory remarks 30.2 32

Felt bullied 30.2 32

Other 24.5 26

Isolated or left out when work was required in groups 16.0 17

Stares 16.0 17

Feared getting a poor grade due to hostile classroom environment 15.0 16

Feared for my physical safety 6.6 7

Source of Conduct by MSU Status (n)

46

24

5

37

52

16

95

63

3

38 37

50

16

Student Respondents Faculty Respondents Staff Respondents

Source = StudentSource = FacultySource = StaffSource = AdministratorSource = Supervisor

Where did the conduct occur?

While working at a University job (40%) In a class (27%) Meeting with a group (24%) Meeting with one person (16%) Walking on campus (19%) Campus office (16%) Public space on campus (15%) Faculty office (15%)

What did you do?1

Felt embarrassed (43%) Told a friend (43%) Avoided the harasser (38%) Ignored it (26%) 23% made a complaint to an MSU official 16% didn’t know who to go to 23% did not report the incident for fear of retaliation

1Respondents could mark more than one response

Victim of Sexual Assault While at MSU?

n %

Yes 10 1.5

All victims were women

6 were undergraduate students; 3 were employees

Victims of Sexual Assault

Where did it occur?

On-Campus (n=7)

Off-campus (n=3)

Who was the offender?

Professor (n=4)

Co-worker (n=3)

Acquaintance (n=2)

Victims of Sexual Assault

What did you do1?Told a friend (n=6)

Told a family member (n=5)

Sought medical services (n=2)

Sought support from an MSU resource (n=3)

Sought support from a campus faculty member (n=3)

Sought information on-line (n=2)

Nothing (n=2)

1Respondents could mark more than one response

Comfortable Being “Out” on Campus (%)

19

2

8

2

14

3 4 4

24

1416

1410

28 28 27 29

43

36

42

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often

LGBU (Total n=21)Heterosexual (Total n=603)People of Color (n=50)White People (n=582)

Perceptions of Campus Climate

80% of respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate at MSU.

81% of respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their academic department/program of study

84% of respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their classes/work area/unit

Comfort with Overall Campus Climate by Race (%)

14

23

56

63

21

96 3 4 2

Very comfortable Comfortable Unsure Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable

People of ColorWhite

Comfort with Climate in Academic Dept/Program or Administrative Dept by Race (%)

16

32

68

52

149

25

0 2

Very comfortable Comfortable Unsure Uncomfortable VeryUncomfortable

People of ColorWhite

Observed Harassment

Observed % n

Yes 17.9 117

No 81.5 553

Observed Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Race/Ethnicity

17

26

White People (n=103) People of Color (n=14)

Observed Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Gender

1719

Female (n=82) Male (n=33)

Observed Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by MSU Status

14

31

25

17

Students (n=61)Faculty (n=23)Staff (n=25)Administrators (n=2)

Form of Observed Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct (%)

Form of Observed Harassment n %

Deliberately ignored or excluded 53 45.3

Stares 46 39.3

Derogatory remarks 42 35.9

Target of racial/ethnic profiling 35 29.9

Intimidated/bullied 33 28.2

Receiving a poor grade because of hostile classroom environment 25 21.4

Assumption that someone was admitted or hired because of their identity 18 15.4

Isolated or left out when work was required in groups 18 15.4

Singled out as “resident authority” due to their identity 17 14.5

Source of Observed Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct (%)

Students (55%) Faculty (35%) Administrators (18%) Staff (18%) Department chair/program director (15%)

Perceived Discriminatory Behavior or Employment Practices

n %

Yes 47 24.1

Based on: Position Status (40%, n=19) Gender Identity (28%, n=13) Educational Level (26%, n=12) Age (26%, n=12)

MSU Addresses Issues of Ethnicity by Race (%)

24

8

2

27

17

50

25

51

14

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree

People of Color (n=52)

White (n=583)

MSU Addresses Issues of Gender Identity by Gender (%)

12

5

40

2

48

28

6

4.0

34

25.0


Female (n=466)

Male (n=170)

MSU Addresses Issues of Sexual Orientation by Sexual Orientation (%)

10

30

13

4

20

15

10

45

32

7


LGBU (n=20)

Heterosexual (n=611)

MSU Addresses Issues of Employee Status by Position (%)

92

12

39

49

25

15

28

83

8

0 0

40

9

40 3541

10


Students (n=438)

Faculty (n=74)

Staff (n=98)

Administrators (n=12)

President’s Office Visibly Fosters Diversity (%)

53

7275

83

47

0

10

Students Faculty Staff Administrator

Agree*

Disagree**

President’s Office Visibly Fosters Diversity by Race and Sexual Orientation (%)

48

60

52

59

17

85

9

People of Color White People LGBU Heterosexual

Agree*

Disagree**

Dean of Students Office Visibly Fosters Diversity (%)

37

44

29

44

16

8 79

Student of Color White Student LGBU Student Heterosexual Student

Agree*

Disagree**

My Academic Dean/Unit Head Visibly Fosters Diversity (%)

48 47

58

39

50

40

8 5

55

8 9 9 6

16

All Res

pondents

Student

Faculty

Staff

Perso

n of C

olor

Femal

e

LGBU

Agree*

Disagree**

My Supervisor Visibly Fosters Diversity (%)

55 53

6571

48

59

40

5816

10688

Agree*

Disagree**

Student Government Visibly Fosters Diversity (%)

49 51

35

50

29

40

52

12 10

33

11

2112 12

All Stu

dents

White

Stu

dent

Studen

t of C

olor

Heter

osexu

al S

tude

nt

LGBU Stu

dent

Mal

e Stu

dent

Femal

e Stu

dent

Agree*

Disagree**

Course Content Inclusive of Difference (%)

64

72

5561

9 758

Students Faculty People of Color White People

Agree*Disagree**

Course Content Inclusive of Difference (%)

60 6257

61

85

107

Female Male LGBU Heterosexual

Agree*

Disagree**

Employee Perceptions of Welcoming Workplace Climate (%)

23

83

21

3324

17 17

61 61

50

64

0

151414

All Respondents People of Color White People LGBU Heterosexual

Agree*Do Not Agree or DisagreeDisagree**

Student Perceptions of Welcoming Classroom Climate (%)

68

49

7168 70

57

69

11

27

912

7

21

10

All Students Students ofColor

White Students Female Male LGBU Heterosexual

Agree*

Disagree**

Workshops/Programs Would Positively Affect Campus Climate

StronglyAgree

Agree Do not Agree or Disagree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

n % n % n % n % n %

Age (52%) 86 13.1 253 38.7 240 36.7 40 6.1 3 0.5

Country of origin (58%) 102 15.6 278 42.5 204 31.2 33 5.0 3 0.5

Ethnicity (65%) 123 18.8 300 45.9 170 26.0 26 4.0 3 0.5

Race (63%) 116 17.7 297 45.4 177 27.1 22 3.4 4 0.6

English as a second language status (57%) 98 15.0 275 42.0 210 32.1 30 4.6 6 0.9

Psychological disability status (58%) 86 13.1 296 45.3 218 33.3 18 2.8 2 0.3

Learning disability status (61%) 95 14.5 306 46.8 202 30.9 20 3.1 2 0.3

Physical disability status (61%) 96 14.7 305 46.6 197 30.1 23 3.5 2 0.3

Physical characteristics (51%) 71 10.9 259 39.6 249 38.1 36 5.5 6 0.9

Sexual orientation (54%) 95 14.5 260 39.8 219 33.5 35 5.4 14 2.1

Gender identity (53%) 91 13.9 254 38.8 226 34.6 36 5.5 13 2.0

Gender expression (51%) 92 14.1 240 36.7 232 35.5 41 6.3 15 2.3

Religion (52%) 89 13.6 250 38.2 239 36.5 35 5.4 8 1.2

Socioeconomic class (53%) 85 13.0 262 40.1 242 37.0 27 4.1 5 0.8

Veterans/Active military (51%) 79 12.1 252 38.5 246 37.6 33 5.0 9 1.4

Questions..? Other Ideas..?

Next Steps…

Transformational Change

A change in the institution’s: Shape – how the institution

looks which allows it to function effectively in the dynamic world in which it operates.

Structure – the basic parts of the institution that are responsible for its character.

Nature – values, beliefs , reward systems, ownership, patterns, etc.

Institutional Prerequisites for Change1

1) Commitment of top leaders

2) Written description of the changed institution

3) Conditions that foster positive change

4) Likelihood of a critical mass of support

5) Awareness of resistance and the need to honor it

1Adpated from Beckhard (1992)

Institutional Prerequisites for Change

6) A medium to long range perspective7) Awareness of the need for education8) The conviction that the change must be

undertaken9) Willingness to use resources10) Commitment to maintaining the flow of

information

NDUS Diversity Council Retreat April 20-21, 2007

Objectives

Review Vision NDUS Diversity Council Vision

Develop NDUS Diversity Council Goals for System

Create 1-2 actions per goal that cross campuses

Create additional actions for each campus to best address their respective challenges and contexts

Vision

Vision without action is a daydream and action without vision is a nightmare.

-- Japanese proverb

Vision 2007

A Community of Difference where, through education & awareness, all are accepted, respected, & celebrated.

Development of Strategic Plan Areas for consideration

Access/Retention Research/Scholarship Curriculum/Pedagogy Inter-group/Intra-group

Relations University

Policies/Service External Relations

Transformed Campus Climate

Access

Retention

Research

Scholarship

Curriculum Pedagogy



Development of Strategic Plan Action areas

Symbolic actionsFiscal actionsAdministrative actionsEducational actions

Transformationvia

Intervention

FiscalActions

Symbolic Actions

AdministrativeActions

EducationalActions

Transformed Campus Climate

Access

Retention

Research

Scholarship

Curriculum Pedagogy



What thoughts do you have?

Additional questions/comments on results?

Thoughts on process?Suggested actions?

Contact Dr. Rankin at [email protected]

Last Thoughts

“Resistance begins with people confronting pain, whether it’s theirs or somebody else’s, and wanting to do something to change it”

--- bell hooks,“Yearning”

Minot State University Campus Climate Assessment Results of Report May 7, 2007.

Documents

Transcript of Minot State University Campus Climate Assessment Results of Report May 7, 2007.